Madras High Court
G.G.Deepak Kumar vs The Managing Director on 25 July, 2023
W.P.No.8106 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 25.07.2023
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.V.KARTHIKEYAN
W.P.No.8106 of 2017
and W.M.P.Nos.8879 & 8881 of 2017
G.G.Deepak Kumar .. Petitioner
vs
1.The Managing Director,
Chennai Metro Rail Limited,
Admin Building,
CMRL Department, Poonamallee High Road,
Koyambedu, Chennai – 107.
2.The Chief General Manager,
Chennai Metro Rail Limited,
Admin Building,
CMRL Department, Poonamallee High Road,
Koyambedu, Chennai – 107.
3.The General Manager (HR)
Chennai Metro Rail Limited,
Admin Building,
CMRL Department, Poonamallee High Road,
Koyambedu, Chennai – 107. .. Respondents
Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
praying to issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the
records of the 3rd respondent pertaining to his Notification
No.CMRL/HR/01/2013 and quash the same and further direct the
respondents to issue appointment order to the petitioner based on
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/8
W.P.No.8106 of 2017
the offer of appointment issued as per Employment Notification
No.CMRL/HR.01/2013.
For Petitioner : Mr.V.Manisekaran
For Respondents : Ms.Rita Chandrasekar
for M/s.Aiyar and Dolia
ORDER
Writ petition has been filed in the nature of a certiorarified
mandamus seeking interference with the Notification dated
23.08.2016 issued by the third respondent in Notification
No.CMRL/HR/01/2013 and direct the respondents to issue
appointment order to the petitioner based on the offer of
appointment issued as per Employment Notification
No.CMRL/HR.01/2013.
2. The petitioner had worked as apprentice for three years
as a Plumber at Port Trust, Chennai.
3. The respondents, Chennai Metro Rail Limited a joint
venture of Government of India and Government of Tamil Nadu
were entrusted with the implementation of rail based mass rapid
transit system at Chennai. The work for construction of the rail net
work had commenced and is now in progress.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.8106 of 2017
4. The respondents had selected staff for operation of the
rails. One of the posts which was called for is Plumber. The
petitioner had applied for the said post. An online examination was
conducted on 31.03.2013 and the results were published on
03.05.2013.
5. The third respondent / General Manager (HR) had
issued a letter dated 10.05.2013 calling upon the petitioner to
appear for verification of certificates and medical test. The
petitioner also appeared on 07.06.2013. In July, 2013, the list of
selected candidates were published. The petitioner's name was in
Sl.No.12.
6. The petitioner claims a legitimate expectation of being
offered employment. He also claims that there were a total of 23
posts and those out of that total number, 6 posts were reserved for
Backward Community.
7. The petitioner then saw the impugned notification
calling for fresh candidates for the post of Plumber. Aggrieved by
that particular notification, the writ petition has been filed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.8106 of 2017
8. Learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the
respondents, however, pointed out that the Notification applied by
the petitioner was for the post of Junior Engineer Grade II (Station
Control) and that the petitioner is not qualified for the same.
9. It is also contended that what was produced before this
Court was only the Notification as such but not the terms and
conditions. If they so referred in the website of the respondents it
would clearly indicate that the offer of appointment would be
issued based on the operational requirements. This would indicate
that as and when the need arises and in this case for Plumbing
then in accordance with the merit list, appointment will be issued.
10. It is further stated by learned Standing Counsel that
only one post out of twelve posts was filled up and there is no
obligation on the part of the respondents to provide employment to
any other candidate. It is stated that verification of certificates was
only a preliminary exercise undertaken and whenever need arises,
depending upon exigencies, the posts will be filled up. It is
therefore contended that the Notification which is questioned by
the petitioner is not for the post of Plumbing. It is also stated that
as and when need arises, what is termed as operational
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.8106 of 2017
requirement, the post of Plumber would be actually filled up.
11. Learned counsel for the petitioner had placed reliance
on a judgment of a learned Single Judge of this Court in
W.P.No.15196 of 2016 batch dated 02.01.2017 [P.Sreeram &
Others v The Chairman, Secretary to Government of India &
Others]. In that case, the petitioners had completed their Diploma
in Electronics and Communication Engineering and had appeared
for examination conducted by the CMRL and then questioned the
advertisement which had been issued for Junior Engineer Grade II
(Station Control).
12. The petitioners therein had applied for the post of Train
Operation Station Controller and Junior Engineer (Stations). The
learned Single Judge found that the petitioners had a legitimate
expectation of being appointed. The significant aspect is that they
also had the requisite qualifications. The learned Single Judge in
that particular case had directed the respondents / CMRL to call
the petitioners and thereafter consider their claim for appointment.
13. The facts, in the present case, are slightly different.
The petitioner had appeared for examination for the post of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.8106 of 2017
Plumber and was placed at Sl.No.12 in accordance with the merit
list. It had been specifically stated that the post would be filled up
only owing to the operational requirements.
14. This Court cannot act as a bridge to create employee
and employer relationship between the petitioner and the
respondents. The respondents still hold the key, to appoint or not
the petitioner herein.
15. Learned counsel for the petitioner requested that if the
respondents are in need of filling any vacancy in Plumbing, they
may follow the earlier selection which had already been done and
offer employment in accordance with the rules and regulations,
and if they issue a fresh notification then the petitioner may also
be afforded an opportunity of applying, if found eligible, and to
participate in the selection process.
16. The respondents will then have to examine whether the
petitioner is qualified and if he is otherwise eligible, may offer
employment, but again in accordance with operational
requirements and in conformity with the rules and regulations and
without affecting any other individual.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.8106 of 2017
17. The writ petition stands disposed of with the above
observations. No costs. Connected miscellaneous petitions are
closed.
25.07.2023
Index:Yes/No
Neutral Citation:Yes/No
ssm
To
1.The Managing Director,
Chennai Metro Rail Limited,
Admin Building,
CMRL Department, Poonamallee High Road,
Koyambedu, Chennai – 107.
2.The Chief General Manager,
Chennai Metro Rail Limited,
Admin Building,
CMRL Department, Poonamallee High Road,
Koyambedu, Chennai – 107.
3.The General Manager (HR)
Chennai Metro Rail Limited,
Admin Building,
CMRL Department, Poonamallee High Road,
Koyambedu, Chennai – 107.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.8106 of 2017
C.V.KARTHIKEYAN,J.
ssm
W.P.No.8106 of 2017
25.07.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
